Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustrations.
See 41676-h.htm or 41676-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/41676/pg41676-images.html)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41676/41676-h.zip)
Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
http://archive.org/details/cu31924030737005
[Illustration: Armour of Philip II. Madrid.
_Photograph by Hauser & Menet._]
ARMOUR & WEAPONS
by
CHARLES FFOULKES
With a Preface by
VISCOUNT DILLON, V.P.S.A.
Curator of the Tower Armouries
Oxford
At the Clarendon Press
1909
Henry Frowde, M.A.
Publisher to the University of Oxford
London, Edinburgh, New York
Toronto and Melbourne
PREFACE
Writers on Arms and Armour have approached the subject from many points of
view, but, as all students know, their works are generally so large in
size, or, what is more essential, in price, that for many who do not have
access to large libraries it is impossible to learn much that is required.
Then again, the papers of the Proceedings of the various Antiquarian and
Archaeological Societies are in all cases very scattered and, in some
cases, unattainable, owing to their being out of print. Many writers on
the subject have confined themselves to documentary evidence, while others
have only written about such examples as have been spared by time and
rust. These latter, it may be noted, are, in almost all cases, such as the
brasses and effigies in our churches, quite exceptional, representing as
they do the defences and weapons of the richer classes. What the ordinary
man wore, how he wore it, and how it was made are all questions worthy of
attention. The works of our greatest romancers have so little regarded the
development of armour, and even to-day such anachronisms are seen in
pictures and books, that though many comfortable and picturesque notions
may be disturbed by the actual truth, yet the actual truth will be found
to be no less interesting than fiction. A handy work, not excessive in
size or price, and giving really correct information, seems therefore to
be needed and should be popular. Such a work is this which Mr. ffoulkes
has undertaken, and if we recognize what an immense amount of information
has to be condensed within the limits of a handbook, I think we shall
fully appreciate his endeavours to give an appetite for larger feasts.
DILLON.
TOWER OF LONDON ARMOURIES.
CONTENTS
PAGE
AUTHOR'S NOTE 9
LIST OF AUTHORITIES 10
INTRODUCTION 11
CHAPTER I
THE AGE OF MAIL (1066-1277) 15
CHAPTER II
THE TRANSITION PERIOD (1277-1410) 30
CHAPTER III
THE WEARING OF ARMOUR AND ITS CONSTRUCTIONAL DETAILS 47
CHAPTER IV
PLATE ARMOUR (1410-ABOUT 1600) 68
CHAPTER V
HORSE ARMOUR 87
CHAPTER VI
THE DECADENCE OF ARMOUR 92
CHAPTER VII
WEAPONS 100
INDEX 110
AUTHOR'S NOTE
At the request of many of those who attended my course of lectures,
delivered before the University of Oxford during the Lent Term, 1909, I
have collected and illustrated some of the more important notes dealing
with the Development of European Defensive Armour and Weapons. These pages
are not a mere reprint of those lectures, nor do they aspire to the
dignity of a History of Armour. They are simply intended as a handbook for
use in studying history and a short guide to the somewhat intricate
technicalities of the Craft of the Armourer.
No work, even of the smallest dimensions, can be produced at the present
day without laying its author under a deep sense of indebtedness to Baron
de Cosson for his numerous notes on helms and helmets, and to Viscount
Dillon for his minute and invaluable researches in every branch of this
subject. To this must be added a personal indebtedness to the latter for
much assistance, and for the use of many of the illustrations given in
this work and also in my course of lectures.
CHARLES FFOULKES.
OXFORD, 1909.
The following works should be consulted by those who wish to study the
subject of Armour and Weapons more minutely:--
_A Critical Inquiry into Ancient Armour_, Sir Samuel Meyrick; _A Treatise
on Ancient Armour_, F. Grose; _Ancient Armour_, J. Hewitt; _Arms and
Armour_, Lacombe (trans. by Boutell); _Arms and Armour_, Demmin (trans. by
Black); _Armour in England_, Starkie Gardner; _Waffenkunde_, Wendelin
Boeheim; _Guida del Amatore di Armi Antiche_, J. Gelli; _Dictionnaire du
Mobilier Français_ (vols. ii and vi), Viollet-le-Duc; _Encyclopedia of
Costume_, Planché; _A Manual of Monumental Brasses_, Haines; _Engraved
Illustrations of Antient Armour_, Meyrick and Skelton; _Monumental
Effigies_, Stothard; _The Art of War_, C. W. C. Oman; _Archaeologia_, _The
Archaeological Journal_, _The Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries_;
the Catalogues of the Armouries of Vienna, Madrid, Paris, Brussels, Turin,
Dresden; the Wallace Collection, London and Windsor Castle.
The author is indebted to the publishers of Wendelin Boeheim's
_Waffenkunde_ for the use of the illustrations 33 and 35, and to Messrs.
Parker, publishers of Haines's _Monumental Brasses_, for the figures on
Plate III.
INTRODUCTION
As a subject for careful study and exhaustive investigation perhaps no
detail of human existence can be examined with quite the same completeness
as can the defensive armour and weapons of past ages. Most departments of
Literature, Science, and Art are still living realities; each is still
developing and is subject to evolution as occasion demands; and for this
reason our knowledge of these subjects cannot be final, and our researches
can only be brought, so to speak, up to date. The Defensive Armour of
Europe, however, has its definite limitations so surely set that we can
surround our investigations with permanent boundaries, which, as far as
human mind can judge, will never be enlarged. We can look at our subject
as a whole and can see its whole length and breadth spread out before us.
In other aspects of life we can only limit our studies from day to day as
invention or discovery push farther their conquering march; but, in
dealing with the armour of our ancestors, we know that although we may
still indulge in theories as to ancient forms and usages, we have very
definitely before us in the primitive beginnings, the gradual development,
the perfection, and the decadence or passing away, an absolutely unique
progression and evolution which we can find in no other condition of life.
The survival of the fittest held good of defensive armour until that very
fitness was found to be a source rather of weakness than of strength,
owing to changed conditions of warfare; and then the mighty defences of
steel, impervious to sword, lance, and arrow, passed away, to remain only
as adjuncts of Parade and Pageant, or as examples in museums of a lost art
in warfare and military history. As an aid to the study of History our
interest in armour may be considered perhaps rather sentimental and
romantic than practical or useful. But, if we consider the history of the
Art of War, we shall find that our subject will materially assist us, when
we remember that the growth of nations and their fortunes, at any rate
till recent times, have depended to a large extent on the sword and the
strength of the arm that wielded it.
There is another aspect of historical study which is of some importance,
especially to those who stand on the outskirts of the subject. This aspect
one may call the 'realistic view'. The late Professors York Powell and J.
R. Green both insisted on the importance of this side of the subject; and
we cannot but feel that to be able to visualize the characters of history
and to endow them with personal attributes and personal equipment must
give additional interest to the printed page and other documentary
evidences. When the study of defensive armour has been carefully followed
we shall find that the Black Prince appears to us not merely as a name and
a landmark on the long road of time; we shall be able to picture him to
ourselves as a living individual dressed in a distinctive fashion and
limited in his actions, to some extent, by that very dress and equipment.
The cut of a surcoat, the hilt of a sword, the lines of a breastplate,
will tell us, with some degree of accuracy, when a man lived and to what
nation he belonged; and, at the same time, in the later years, we shall
find that the suit of plate not only proclaims the individuality of the
wearer, but also bears the signature and individuality of the maker; a
combination of interests which few works of handicraft can offer us.
From the eleventh to the end of the fourteenth century we have but a few
scattered examples of actual defensive armour and arms; and the
authenticity of many of these is open to doubt. The reason for this
scarcity is twofold. Firstly, because the material, in spite of its
strength, is liable to destruction by rust and corrosion, especially when
the armour is of the interlinked chain type which exposes a maximum
surface to the atmosphere. A second reason, of equal if not greater
importance, is the fact that, owing to the expense of manufacture and
material, the various portions of the knightly equipment were remade and
altered to suit new fashions and requirements. Perhaps still another
reason may be found in the carelessness and lack of antiquarian interest
in our ancestors, who, as soon as a particular style had ceased to be in
vogue, destroyed or sold as useless lumber objects which to-day would be
of incalculable interest and value.
For these reasons, therefore, we are dependent, for the earlier periods of
our subject, upon those illuminated manuscripts and sculptured monuments
which preserve examples of the accoutrements of the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries. Of these, as far as reliability of date is concerned, the
incised monumental brasses and sculptured effigies in our churches are the
best guides, because they were produced shortly after the death of the
persons they represent, and are therefore more likely to be correct in the
details of dress and equipment; and, in addition, they are often portraits
of the deceased.
Illuminated manuscripts present more difficulty. The miniature painter of
the period was often fantastic in his ideas, and was certainly not an
antiquary. Even the giants of the Renaissance, Raphael, Mantegna, Titian,
and the rest, saw nothing incongruous in arming St. George in a suit of
Milanese plate, or a Roman soldier of the first years of the Christian
epoch in a fluted breastplate of Nuremberg make. Religious and historical
legends were in those days present and living realities and, to the
unlearned, details of antiquarian interest would have been useless for
instructive purposes, whereas the garbing of mythical or historical
characters in the dress of the period made their lives and actions seem a
part of the everyday life of those who studied them.
This being the case, we must use our judgement in researches among
illustrated manuscripts, and must be prepared for anachronisms. For
example, we find that in the illustrated Froissart in the British Museum,
known as the 'Philip de Commines' copy,[1] the barrier or 'tilt' which
separated the knights when jousting is represented in the Tournament of
St. Inglevert. Now this tournament took place in the year 1389; but
Monstrelet tells us[2] that the tilt was first used at Arras in 1429, that
is, some forty years after. This illustrated edition of Froissart was
produced at the end of the fifteenth century, when the tilt was in common
use; so we must, in this and in other like cases, use the illustrations
not as examples of the periods which they record, but as delineations of
the manners, customs, and dress of the period at which they were produced.
The different methods of arming were much the same all over Europe; but in
England fashions were adopted only after they had been in vogue for some
years in France, Italy, and Germany. We may pride ourselves, however, on
the fact that our ancestors were not so prone to exaggeration in style or
to the over-ornate so-called decoration which was in such favour on the
Continent during the latter part of the sixteenth and the first half of
the seventeenth centuries.
For a fuller study of this subject Sir Samuel Meyrick's great work on
Ancient Armour is useful, if the student bears in mind that the author was
but a pioneer, and that many of his statements have since been corrected
in the light of recent investigations, and also that the Meyrick
collection which he so frequently uses to illustrate his remarks is now
dispersed through all the museums of Europe. Of all the authorities the
most trustworthy and most minute and careful in both text and
illustrations is Hewitt, whose three volumes on Ancient Armour have been
the groundwork of all subsequent works in English. Some of the more recent
writers are prone to use Hewitt's infinite care and research without
acknowledging the fact; but they have very seldom improved upon his
methods or added to his investigations. For the later periods, which
Hewitt has not covered so fully as he has the earlier portion of his
subject, the _Catalogues Raisonnés_ of the various museums of England and
Europe will assist the student more than any history that could possibly
be compiled.
CHAPTER I
THE AGE OF MAIL (1066-1277)
With the Norman Conquest we may be said, in England, to enter upon the
iron period of defensive armour. The old, semi-barbaric methods were still
in use, but were gradually superseded by the craft of the smith and the
metal-worker. This use of iron for defensive purposes had been in vogue
for some time on the Continent, for we find the Monk of St. Gall writing
bitterly on the subject in his _Life of Charlemagne_. He says: 'Then could
be seen the Iron Charles, helmed with an iron helm, his iron breast and
his broad shoulders defended by an iron breastplate, an iron spear raised
in his left hand, his right always rested on his unconquered iron
falchion. The thighs, which with most men are uncovered that they may the
more easily ride on horseback, were in his case clad with plates of iron:
I need make no special mention of his greaves, for the greaves of all the
army were of iron. His shield was of iron, his charger iron-coloured and
iron-hearted. The fields and open places were filled with iron, a people
stronger than iron paid universal homage to the strength of iron. The
horror of the dungeon seemed less than the bright gleam of the iron. "Oh
the iron, woe for the iron," was the cry of the citizens. The strong walls
shook at the sight of iron, the resolution of old and young fell before
the iron.'
The difficulty of obtaining and working metal, however, was such that it
was only used by the wealthy, and that sparingly. The more common fashion
of arming was a quilted fabric of either linen or cloth, a very
serviceable protection, which was worn up to the end of the fifteenth
century. Another favourite material for defensive purposes was leather. We
read of the shield of Ajax being composed of seven tough ox-hides, and the
word 'cuirass' itself suggests a leather garment. Now, given either the
leather or the quilted fabric, it is but natural, with the discovery and
use of iron, that it should have been added in one form or another to
reinforce the less rigid material. And it is this reinforcing by plates of
metal, side by side with the use of the interlaced chain armour, which
step by step brings us to the magnificent creations of the armourer's
craft which distinguish the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
Sir Samuel Meyrick[3] leads us into endless intricacies with his theories
of the various kinds of defensive armour in use at the time of the
Conquest; but these theories must of necessity be based only upon personal
opinion, and can in no way be borne out by concrete examples. If we take
the pictured representations of armour as our guide we find certain
arrangements of lines which lead us to suppose that they indicate some
peculiar arrangement of metal upon a fabric. The first and oldest of these
varieties is generally called 'Scale' or Imbricate armour. We find this
represented on the Trajan Column, to give only one of the many examples of
its use in very early times. That it was a very pliant and serviceable
defence we may judge from the fact that, with some alteration in its
application, it formed the distinguishing feature of the Brigandine of the
fifteenth century. The scales were sewn upon a leather or quilted garment,
the upper row overlapping the lower in such a manner that the attachment
is covered and protected from injury (Plate I, 1). The scales were either
formed with the lower edge rounded, like the scales of a fish, or were
feather-shaped or square.
Another method of reinforcing the leather defence has been named the
'Trellice' coat. It is always difficult to discover exactly what the
primitive draughtsman intended to represent in the way of fabrics, and it
is quite open to question whether these diagonal lines may not merely
suggest a quilting of linen or cloth. If it is intended to represent
leather the trellice lines would probably be formed of thongs applied on
to the groundwork with metal studs riveted in the intervening spaces
(Plate I). This arrangement of lines is very common on the Bayeux
Tapestry.
[Illustration: PLATE I
1. Model of Scale armour 2. From Bib. Nat. Paris MS 403 XIIIth cent. 3.
Model of trellice 4. From Bayeux Tapestry 5. Model of Ringed armour 6.
From Harl. MS. Brit. Mus. 603, XIth cent. 7. Model of Mail 8. From the
Album of Wilars de Honecort. XIIIth cent. 9. Model of Banded Mail 10.
Model of Banded Mail after Meyrick. 11. Model of Banded Mail after Waller
12. Romance of Alexander Bib. Nat. Paris. circ. 1240 13. Figure on
buttress of S. Mary's Church, Oxford.]
Another variety to be found in early illuminated manuscripts goes by the
name of 'Ringed' armour. It is quite probable that the circular discs may
have been solid, but on the other hand, from the practical point of view,
a ring gives equal protection against a cutting blow, and is of course
much lighter. The illustration of this form of defensive armour is of
rather earlier date than that at which we commence our investigations, but
it appears with some frequency in manuscripts of the twelfth century. Mr.
J. G. Waller, in his article on the Hauberk of mail in _Archaeologia_,
vol. lix, is of opinion that all these arrangements of line represent
interlinked chain armour. If this is the case chain-mail must have been
much more common than we imagine. From the very nature of its construction
and the labour expended on its intricate manufacture it would surely, at
least in the earlier periods, have been only the defence of the wealthy.
When we examine the protective armour of primitive races we find quilted
and studded garments used, even at the present day, so it seems far more
probable that our illustrations represent some similar forms of defensive
garments than that they are all incompetent renderings of the fabric of
chain-mail only.
That the making of chain-mail must have been laborious in the extreme we
may judge from the fact that the wire which formed the links had to be
hammered out from the solid bar or ingot. As far as can be gathered, the
art of wire-drawing was not practised till the fourteenth century, at
which time Rudolph of Nuremberg is credited with its discovery. The
roughly-hammered strips were probably twisted spirally round an iron or
wood core and then cut off into rings of equal size (Fig. 1). The ends of
the rings were flattened and pierced, and, when interlaced, the pierced
ends were riveted together or sometimes, as is the case with Oriental
mail, welded with heat. Links that are 'jumped', that is with the ends of
the ring merely butted together and not joined, generally show either that
the mail is an imitation, or that it was used for some ceremonial
purpose; for this insecure method of fixing would be useless in the stress
and strain of battle or active service. The most usual method of
interlinking the rings is for each ring to join four others, as will be
seen in the drawing on Plate I, No. 7. No. 8 on the same plate shows the
mail as more generally depicted in illuminations. When we consider the
inexperience of the scribes and illustrators of the Middle Ages we must
admit that this representation of a very intricate fabric is not only very
ingenious but follows quite the best modern impressionist doctrines.
Portions of chain-mail survive in most armouries and museums, but their
provenance is generally unknown, and much that is of Oriental origin is
passed off as European. Chain-mail itself comes in the first instance from
the East, but when it was introduced into Europe is difficult, if not
impossible, to state. It is certainly represented as worn by the Scythians
and Parthians on the Trajan Column, and is probably of greater antiquity
still.
[Illustration: FIG. 1. Probable method of making links for mail.]
From the beginning of the thirteenth century, for about sixty or seventy
years, we find a curious arrangement of lines intended to represent a form
of defensive armour, both in illuminated manuscripts and also on carved
monuments (Plate I, 12, 13).
Mr. Waller, in the article on the Hauberk referred to above, gives it as
his opinion that this 'Banded Mail', as it is called, was but a variety of
the ordinary interlinked mail; but if we examine the illuminations of the
period we shall find that it is shown side by side with the representation
of what all authorities admit to be chain-mail. No. 12 on Plate I shows
the arm and leg defences to be formed of this banded mail, while the head
is protected with the ordinary chain-mail. We have then to try and
discover how these horizontal bands dividing each row of links in the mail
can be shown in a practical form. Meyrick vaguely suggests a row of rings
sewn edgeways on the body garment and threaded with a leather thong
(Plate I, 10), with the under fabric caught up between the rows of rings
and formed into a piping through which a cord was threaded. This theory
has been quoted by Viollet-le-Duc in his _Dictionnaire du Mobilier
Français_, by Dr. Wendelin Boeheim in his _Waffenkunde_, and by more
recent writers; but none of these authorities seems to have taken the
trouble to test its practicability. The human body being rounded, the
tendency of these edge-sewn rings would be to 'gape' and thus give an
opening for the weapon. In addition to this, the number of rings so used
would make the weight of the defence, hanging as it did from the shoulders
alone, almost insupportable. A third and perhaps the most conclusive of
all the arguments against Meyrick's theory is that we frequently find the
inside of a banded mail coif shown with the same markings as the outside,
which aspect would be impossible if the rings were arranged as he
suggests.
From models specially made for this work we find that if leather was used
at all it must be after the manner of No. 9 on Plate I. Here the rings are
covered with the leather on both sides, so that there is no possibility of
their gaping, and, in addition, the leather being pressed against the
rings, on the outside by wear and usage and on the inside from the
pressure of the body, would show ring-markings on front and back which
might be represented in the manner shown in the illustration. The drawback
to this theory is not only the weight of such a defence, but also the heat
from lack of ventilation. By far the most practical theory put forward is
that of Mr. Waller,[4] who gives an illustration of a piece of Oriental
mail with leather thongs threaded through each alternate row of rings.
This gives a certain solidity to the net-like fabric and yet does not add
appreciably to its weight. No. 11 on Plate I shows this arrangement drawn
from a model, and when we compare it with the figures below, taking into
consideration the difficulty of representing such a fabric, we are forced
to admit that this last theory is the most practical. This is especially
so in No. 12; for the mail covering for the head is probably made in one
piece with that of the arms and legs, but the leather thongs have been
omitted on the head and hands to give greater ease of movement.
Before leaving the subject of fabrics it may be well to warn those who
consult Meyrick that this author is rather prone to enunciate theories of
the different forms of mail which, like that of the banded mail, do not
work well in practice. He mentions, among many other varieties, what he
calls 'Mascled' mail. He asserts that this was formed of lozenge-shaped
plates cut out in the centre and applied to linen or leather. He says that
it was so called from its likeness to the meshes of a net (Lat. _macula_).
Now when we consider that the word 'mail' itself comes to us from the
Latin 'macula', through the French 'maille' and the Italian 'maglia', we
find that Meyrick's 'Mascled mail' is but a tautological expression which
can best be applied to the net-like fabric of the interlinked chain
defence, and so his 'Mascled mail' would more correctly be styled a
'Mascled coat', and this coat would probably be formed of the chain
variety as resembling the meshes of a net more closely than any other
fabric.
Double mail is sometimes to be met with on carved monuments, and this
would be constructed in the same manner as the single mail; but two links
would be used together in every case where one is used in the single mail.
Having briefly described the varieties of fabric and material which were
in use at the time of the Conquest for defensive armour, we may pass to
the forms in which those materials were made up. The first garment put on
by the man-at-arms was the Tunic, which was a short linen shirt reaching
usually to just above the knee; it is often shown in miniatures of the
period beneath the edge of the coat of mail.
At one period the tunic appears to have been worn inconveniently long, if
we are to judge from the seals of Richard I, in which it is shown reaching
to the feet. This long under-garment was quite given up by the beginning
of the thirteenth century, and those representations of Joan of Arc which
show a long under-tunic falling from beneath the breastplate are based
upon no reliable authority.
Next to the tunic was worn the Gambeson, called also the Wambais and
Aketon, a quilted garment, either used as the sole defence by the
foot-soldier, or, by the knight, worn under the hauberk to prevent the
chain-mail from bruising the body under the impact of a blow. The gambeson
is shown on Fig. 9, appearing beneath the edge of the hauberk just above
the knee.
The Hauberk, which was worn over the gambeson, was the chief body defence.
It is true that we read of a 'plastron de fer', which seems to have been a
solid metal plate worn over the breast and sometimes at the back; but it
was invariably put on either under the hauberk itself or over the hauberk,
but always beneath the Jupon or surcoat, which at this period was the
outermost garment worn. In either case it was not exposed to view, so it
is impossible to tell with any degree of accuracy what was its shape or
how it was fixed to the wearer. Hewitt[5] gives two illustrations of
carved wooden figures in Bamberg Cathedral, which show a plastron de fer
worn over the jupon, which seems to be studded with metal. The figures
were executed about the year 1370. The form of the hauberk, as shown on
the Bayeux Tapestry, was of the shirt order (Plate I, 4, 6). It was
usually slit to the waist, front and back, for convenience on horseback,
and the skirts reached to the knee, thus protecting the upper leg. It is
perhaps needless to point out that the extreme weight of mail with its
thick padded undergarment made the use of a horse a necessity, for the
weight was all borne upon the shoulders, and was not, as is the case with
suits of plate, distributed over the limbs and body of the wearer. The
sleeves of the hauberk were sometimes short; sometimes they were long and
ended in fingerless mittens of mail. The three varieties of sleeve are
shown on Plate I, while the mittens turned back to leave the hand bare
appear on the Setvans brass (Plate III, 2).
Wace, the chronicler, seems to suggest different forms of defensive
habiliments, for we find mention of a short form of the hauberk, called
the Haubergeon. In his _Roman de Rou_ he writes of Duke William at the
Battle of Senlac:--
Sun boen haubert fist demander,[6]
while of Bishop Odo he says:--
Un haubergeon aveit vestu
De sor une chemise blanche.
The fact that he mentions the tunic ('chemise blanche') seems to imply
that it was seen beneath the hem of the haubergeon, which would not be the
case with the long-skirted hauberk. Occasionally in illuminated
manuscripts the hauberk is shown slit at the sides; but for what purpose
it is difficult to imagine, for it would impede the wearer when walking
and would make riding an impossibility.
The defences of the leg, made of mail like the hauberk, seem to have been
used, at first, only by the nobles, if the Bayeux Tapestry is taken as a
guide. The common soldiers wore linen or leather swathings, sometimes
studded with metal, but in appearance closely resembling the modern
puttee. The upper portion of the leg was protected at a later period with
Chaussons, while the defences from knee to foot were called Chausses. Wace
mentions 'chauces de fer', but we must remember, as was noticed in the
introduction, that Wace wrote some seventy years after the Conquest, and
probably described the accoutrements worn at his own time. The Bayeux
Tapestry is nearer the period, as far as we can date it with any
correctness, but here we are hampered to some extent by the crude methods
of the embroideress. The chaussons are not often shown in illuminations,
for the long-skirted hauberk covers the leg to the knee; but the chausses
appear in all pictorial and sculptured records of the period, made either
of mail or of pourpointerie, that is fabric studded with metal. Towards
the end of the thirteenth century the chaussons and chausses were made in
one stocking-like form covering the foot; this is shown on Plate I, 8, 12.
In the first of these illustrations only the front of the leg is covered,
and the chausses are laced at the back.
As the manufacture of mail progressed the whole of the wearer's person
came to be protected by it. In addition to the coverings of the body we
find continuations that protected arms and legs, and in course of time the
neck and head were protected with a Coif or hood of mail, which is shown
in use in Plate I, No. 12, and thrown back on the shoulders on No. 8.
Although of no protective use, the Surcoat is so essentially part of the
war equipment of the knight that it needs more than a passing notice. It
first appears on Royal seals at the beginning of the thirteenth century,
in the reign of King John. Some modern writers have suggested that it was
first used in the Crusades to keep the sun off the mail; however this may
be, we have written proof that it was of use in protecting the intricate
fabric of chain armour from the wet, which by rusting the metal played
havoc with its serviceability. It will be seen in different lengths in the
figures on Plate I. In _The Avowynge of King Arthur_, stanza 39, we find--
With scharpe weppun and schene
Gay gowns of grene,
To hold thayre armur clene
And were[7] hitte fro the wete.
Like the hauberk, the surcoat was slit to the waist in front and behind
for convenience on horseback, and was usually girt at the waist with a
cord or belt. It was frequently decorated with the armorial bearings of
the wearer. When the barrel helm was worn, concealing the whole face, some
such cognizance was necessary that the knight might be recognized. The
Setvans brass (Plate III) shows the armorial device powdered over the
surcoat.
The headpiece characteristic of the Norman Conquest is the conical nasal
Helm. We should draw a distinction between the Helmet and the Helm. The
former is, of course, a diminutive of the latter. At the time of the
Norman Conquest the head covering would rank rather as a helmet, as it did
not entirely cover the face. The Norman helmet was conical, usually formed
of four triangular pieces of metal plate riveted in a ring and meeting at
the apex. Sometimes a Nasal or nose-guard was added (Plate I, 4, 6). That
this nasal must have been broad enough to conceal the face to a great
extent we may judge from the story how the Norman soldiers believed their
leader to be killed, and how William, raising his helm, rode along the
lines crying 'I am here, and by God's help I shall conquer'. The Bayeux
Tapestry illustrates this incident. On some of the Conqueror's seals we
find the helmet tied on with laces. Earflaps were sometimes added, as may
be seen on the chessmen found in the Isle of Lewis, now in the British
Museum.
[Illustration: FIG. 2. From the effigy of Hugo Fitz Eudo, Kirkstead,
Lincs., thirteenth century.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3. From a figure in the Cathedral at Constance,
thirteenth century.]
[Illustration: FIG. 4. From the Great Seal of Alexander II of Scotland,
thirteenth century.]
[Illustration: FIG. 5. Brit. Mus. Roy. MS. 20. D. i, thirteenth century.]
During the twelfth century the helmet gradually became the helm. The
ear-flaps were fixed, becoming an integral part of the defence, and closed
round to join the nasal, this arrangement forming at length the ventail or
visor. This gives us what is known as the 'Barrel helm' (Fig. 2), in which
the whole head is enclosed and the only opening in the front is the
'ocularium' or vision slit. Next we have the same kind of helm with the
addition of holes for breathing in the lower portion (Fig. 3). In some
varieties the back of the helm is shorter than the front, as on Fig. 4,
and in this kind also we sometimes find breathing holes added. The Great
Seals of the kings are a most useful guide in discovering the
accoutrements of each period, and especially so for the helms and helmets,
which are easier to distinguish than the more minute details of dress and
equipment. It will be understood that in time the flat-topped helm was
given up in favour of the 'Sugar-loaf' helm (Fig. 5), as it is generally
called, when we consider the importance of a 'glancing surface' in armour.
Although thickness of material was of some importance in defensive armour,
this providing of surfaces from which a weapon would slip was considered
to be of supreme importance by the armour-smiths of later periods. In the
conical helm, as indeed in nearly all great helms, the vision and
breathing apertures were pierced in the plates of the helm itself and were
not part of a movable visor, as was the case in the helmet. The weight of
these helms must have been great; for they do not seem to have been bolted
on to the shoulders, as were the fifteenth and sixteenth century tilting
helms, but to have rested upon the crown of the head. The drawing on Plate
I, No. 8, shows a padded cap which was worn under the mail to protect the
head from pressure. On No. 12 of the same plate we see the helm being put
on over the mail coif; the padded cap is worn under the mail. For
tournaments the helm was sometimes made of toughened leather, which was
called 'cuirbouilli' from the fact that it was prepared by being boiled in
oil and then moulded to shape. This material was very strong and
serviceable and was used, as we shall see later on, for reinforcing the
chain armour and also for horse armour. It was generally decorated with
gilding and painting. For the tournament held at Windsor in 1278 we find
mention of 'xxxviii galee de cor'.[8] As we have shown, these great helms
were not attached to the body armour and were thus liable to be struck off
in battle. In order to recover them a chain was sometimes stapled to the
helm and fastened to the waist or some portion of the body armour (Fig.
6).
The usual form of helmet in the twelfth century is the cup-shaped
headpiece of which the Cervellière is a typical example (Fig. 7). It was
either worn as the sole defence or was used in conjunction with the helm
as an under-cap. The wide-rimmed hat of iron is found all through the
period of defensive armour with which we deal. It appears in the
thirteenth century (Fig. 8) and is also to be found in the fifteenth.
There is an example of one of these war-hats (_Eisenhut_) in the museum at
Nuremberg.
[Illustration: FIG. 6. Detail from the brass of Sir Roger de Trumpington,
Trumpington, Camb., 1290.]
[Illustration: FIG. 7. From the monument to Johan le Botiler, St. Bride's,
Glamorganshire, 1300.]
[Illustration: FIG. 8. Add. MS. 11. 639, f. 520, thirteenth century.]
The Shield at the time of the Conquest was kite-shaped. It was long enough
to cover the body and legs of the warrior when mounted, but it must have
been a most inconvenient adjunct to his accoutrements. As we have seen in
the Monk of St. Gall's records, the shield was sometimes made of iron; but
the more usual material was wood covered with leather or the tough
cuirbouilli. Its broad flat surface was from the earliest times used by
the painter to display his art, which at first was not systematized, but
consisted of geometrical patterns and strange birds and beasts that had no
special meaning. As time went on each knight retained the device which was
borne upon his shield and came to be recognized by it, and from this
sprung the complicated science of Heraldry, which has survived, with all
its intricate detail, to the present day. The surface of the shield was
often bowed so that it embraced the body of the wearer. That some must
have been flat we may suppose from the fact that the soldiers in the
Bayeux Tapestry are represented as using them for trays to carry cups and
plates at the 'Prandium'. In St. Lucy's Chapel, at Christ Church Cathedral
in Oxford, in the window depicting the martyrdom of St. Thomas of
Canterbury, are to be seen two varieties of decorated shields. Two of the
knights bear shields painted with geometrical designs, while Fitz Urse
carries a shield on which are three bears' heads erased, a punning
cognizance from the name of the wearer. The date of the window is about
the end of the thirteenth century. The shield was attached to the wearer
by a thong passing round the neck, called the Guige. When not in use it
was slung by this thong on the back. When in use the arm and hand passed
through the short loops called Enarmes (Fig. 10). The Royal blazon first
appears on the shield in the reign of Richard I. Occasionally we find
circular shields depicted in illuminations; but they were generally used
by the foot-soldiers. As the development of defensive armour proceeds we
shall find that the shield becomes smaller, and in time is discarded, the
body defences being made sufficient protection in themselves.
[Illustration: FIG. 9. From the _Romance of Alexander_, f. 150, Bod. Lib.,
fourteenth century.]
[Illustration: FIG. 10. A, A. Enarmes. B. Guige.]